Remember the old idea to have a private firm build a national public safety …

Share this story

The FCC's long-awaited, Congressionally mandated, already-castigated, Big-Content-anticipated National Broadband Plan will arrive in all of its glory on March 16, missing the ill-omened Ides of March by a day. The FCC's release strategy for the report has borrowed heavily from Hollywood—create "previews" of your blockbuster and use them to both whet audience interest and to gauge audience reaction. The latest trailer for the Plan rolled today as FCC Chair Julius Genachowski previewed the bits of the plan focused on public safety (PDF), which is about to get as much money for broadband and wireless as Verizon spent on FiOS.

In the eight years since the World Trade Center was destroyed, talk about "interoperable public safety" systems has been cheap; implementation has been hard. The FCC's contribution to the issue was 20MHz of spectrum set aside in the massive 700MHz auction of a few years back, when the "D Block" of spectrum was auctioned to private firms who wanted to pay a bazillion dollars for the spectrum and then build a completely new national wireless network to support both the public and public safety users (and to high public safety specs).

The National Broadband Plan will return to the D Block, but with a different plan. "The private sector is simply not going to build a nationwide, state-of-the-art, interoperable broadband network for public safety on its own dime," said Genachowski today. So where's the cash going to come from? The federal government—and the request is not a small one.

"The Plan will recommend that Congress consider significant public funding—$16 billion-18 billion over 10 years—for the creation of a federal grant program to help support network construction, operation and evolution of the pubic [sic] safety broadband network."

$18 billion is about what Verizon has spent rolling out its FiOS fiber-to-the-home network, which should give you some idea of the scale of the task being considered here. It's not fully clear where the money will go yet, but Genachowski said that another D Block auction will take place, so some form of public/private partnership still seems in view. The FCC will also launch its own Emergency Response Interoperability Center (ERIC) to handle the technical details of coordinating public safety radios and networked systems.

Genachowski does have experience in this area. In college, he served as an Emergency Medical Technician. "In addition," he said, "when the planes hit the World Trade Center on 9/11, I was not far away, and my wife was closer. My brother, who worked very near the World Trade Center, had traveled in the subway under the Towers shortly before they fell."

Though he recognizes the money represents a "significant funding commitment," Genachowski and his team simply believe that the earlier vision of a "free" public safety network, as good as it sounded, simply wasn't practical. "We have gone too long with little progress to show for it," he noted.

Update: The FCC lets us know that it has "updated and corrected" its cost figures for the project. $6 billion is set aside for grants to actually build the wireless network; another $6-$10 billion are set aside for grant to fund the ongoing operation of the network.

18 Reader Comments

I wouldn't say I'm against some kind of national broadband plan, but do we really need a "public safety" wireless network? What would we use it for? Anyone who has a phone, including a cell phone, can easily dial 911. Television is already required to support emergency broadcasts. Why do we need this new safety network?

Originally posted by chronomitch:I wouldn't say I'm against some kind of national broadband plan, but do we really need a "public safety" wireless network? What would we use it for? Anyone who has a phone, including a cell phone, can easily dial 911. Television is already required to support emergency broadcasts. Why do we need this new safety network?

It's -for- public safety use, not for the public to use when they have a public safety issue. Think: the radios that cops and firefighters use, the computers in cop cars, etc.

Originally posted by chronomitch:I wouldn't say I'm against some kind of national broadband plan, but do we really need a "public safety" wireless network? What would we use it for? Anyone who has a phone, including a cell phone, can easily dial 911. Television is already required to support emergency broadcasts. Why do we need this new safety network?

It's -for- public safety use, not for the public to use when they have a public safety issue. Think: the radios that cops and firefighters use, the computers in cop cars, etc.

I'm really glad to see that the FCC chair has experience in Public Safety. Working part time as an EMT in college and living in New York City during 9/11 exceeds any qualification requirements I can think of for someone to lead a $16 billion dollar emergency management infrastructure project./sarcasm

I don't know anything about or have an opinion of Mr. Genachowski, but for the author of the article to reference the above as "experience in [Public Safety]" is ridiculous.

You can make all the grant money you like available. If a local town/county/fire district/rescue squad doesn't have someone who can write a grant proposal (many of them) how are they going to get the equipment to tie into such a network, never mind the expertise to get such a network built for them.

This will likely end up another patchwork system at best with too many agencies still using their own systems and being unable to communicate with each other.

Originally posted by jcouvret:I'm really glad to see that the FCC chair has experience in Public Safety. Working part time as an EMT in college and living in New York City during 9/11 exceeds any qualification requirements I can think of for someone to lead a $16 billion dollar emergency management infrastructure project./sarcasm

I don't know anything about or have an opinion of Mr. Genachowski, but for the author of the article to reference the above as "experience in [Public Safety]" is ridiculous.

Wow, such vitriol over such an obvious point. Genachowski has a bit of field experience with these issues, unlike most FCC commissioners, and the issue is more personally pressing to him because of it.

I'm not sure what the ridiculous sarcasm was about; no one's suggesting that he's about to go out and personally lead a massive infrastructure buildout.

"The Plan will recommend that Congress consider significant public funding—$16 billion-18 billion over 10 years—for the creation of a federal grant program to help support network construction, operation and evolution of the pubic [sic] safety broadband network."

So the actual cost and duration for the project ought to be, what, 15 years and $25 billion?

Wow, that is really a fair chunk of change. Still Verizon's Fios does NOT cover the entire country (and surrounding waterways) presumably this service would. Private systems are great until there is a disaster, then everyone wants to call at the same time and the data lines get overwhelmed. At one time I spoke with some Telco Reps if it was possible to provide some kind of QoS tagging or guaranteed service for safety workers, but they said it wasn't really practical. It sure sounds good on paper however, it would be a lot cheaper if possible.

I typically tell my users to rely on text and email during a disaster where possible. Low bandwidth applications with delayed delivery are very resilient to all kinds of problems. IMHO great advice for everyone who isn't a safety worker, don't clog the phone lines if you can avoid it during a disaster.

Originally posted by jcouvret:I'm really glad to see that the FCC chair has experience in Public Safety. Working part time as an EMT in college and living in New York City during 9/11 exceeds any qualification requirements I can think of for someone to lead a $16 billion dollar emergency management infrastructure project./sarcasm

I don't know anything about or have an opinion of Mr. Genachowski, but for the author of the article to reference the above as "experience in [Public Safety]" is ridiculous.

Wow, such vitriol over such an obvious point. Genachowski has a bit of field experience with these issues, unlike most FCC commissioners, and the issue is more personally pressing to him because of it.

I'm not sure what the ridiculous sarcasm was about; no one's suggesting that he's about to go out and personally lead a massive infrastructure buildout.

It's kind of like suggesting that since I've commented on the ArsTechnica site before, that might qualify me to have opinion on how the site should be run. I very well might be qualified, but it's not my commenting experience that makes me qualified.

If Mr. Genachowski had experience as a emergency manager, fire chief, or any other top level ICS (Incident Command System) experience, then that would be meaningful. However, having been an ambulance jockey during college or having lived in an area affected by a major disaster does not qualify as applicable "experience". Reason to care about the topic, certainly, but not experience. And "experience" is the word you used.

Yes, this is a rather small point in regard to your overall article, but it really detracted for me. To be honest, when I commented, I was worried you were actually being sarcastic and I was missing the cues. I guess not...

Originally posted by jcouvret:It's kind of like suggesting that since I've commented on the ArsTechnica site before, that might qualify me to have opinion on how the site should be run. I very well might be qualified, but it's not my commenting experience that makes me qualified. .

jcouvret:If Mr. Genachowski had experience as a emergency manager, fire chief, or any other top level ICS (Incident Command System) experience, then that would be meaningful. However, having been an ambulance jockey during college or having lived in an area affected by a major disaster does not qualify as applicable "experience". Reason to care about the topic, certainly, but not experience. And "experience" is the word you used.

As I see it, Mr. Genachowski's job is to help decide what the network needs to do. The what, not necessarily the how. In this, his job is much like that of a systems engineer (or a project manager).

And your comment here flies in the face of systems engineering best practices, which says you need to consider the needs of all stakeholders. Including those like that of the "ambulance jockey" you deride. Properly weighted of course. That proper weighting is often one of the hardest parts of system engineering.

Certainly, many projects have failed on the simple fact of focusing too much on one stake holder (or set of stake holders). Like the emergency manager, fire chief, or ICS manager you mention. As systems become more complex, it becomes ever more unlikely that any one stakeholder will be able to provide all the information required for a successful design.

That is why many companies hire human factors experts, make early prototypes for field trials, and in general try to gather as much information as they can from as many stakeholders as they can.

As a system engineer (or project manager), any relevant domain knowledge can give you an edge, making it more likely for success. Perhaps it would have been more helpful if Genachowski had been an ICS expert. But I certainly don't agree it is appropriate to deride the perspective of all other stakeholders as irrelevant.

Originally posted by jcouvret:I'm really glad to see that the FCC chair has experience in Public Safety. Working part time as an EMT in college and living in New York City during 9/11 exceeds any qualification requirements I can think of for someone to lead a $16 billion dollar emergency management infrastructure project./sarcasm

I don't know anything about or have an opinion of Mr. Genachowski, but for the author of the article to reference the above as "experience in [Public Safety]" is ridiculous.

Wow, such vitriol over such an obvious point. Genachowski has a bit of field experience with these issues, unlike most FCC commissioners, and the issue is more personally pressing to him because of it.

I'm not sure what the ridiculous sarcasm was about; no one's suggesting that he's about to go out and personally lead a massive infrastructure buildout.

It's kind of like suggesting that since I've commented on the ArsTechnica site before, that might qualify me to have opinion on how the site should be run. I very well might be qualified, but it's not my commenting experience that makes me qualified.

If Mr. Genachowski had experience as a emergency manager, fire chief, or any other top level ICS (Incident Command System) experience, then that would be meaningful. However, having been an ambulance jockey during college or having lived in an area affected by a major disaster does not qualify as applicable "experience". Reason to care about the topic, certainly, but not experience. And "experience" is the word you used.

Yes, this is a rather small point in regard to your overall article, but it really detracted for me. To be honest, when I commented, I was worried you were actually being sarcastic and I was missing the cues. I guess not...

I think Mr. Genachowski's experience qualifies him to talk about the importance of a reliable communication network in the event of an emergency/catastrophe/natural disaster/act of god.

Public Safety doesn't need bandwidth. They need efficiency and coordination. What in the name of GOD would public safety do with 80mhz of bandwidth? responders don't need youtube, they need to be able to talk to people who know whats up, and coordinate their actions. They need the boots-on-the-ground to be able to talk to each other without having to patch through 5 organizations. I fear that the FCC's plans for public safety are so huge and grand that it's a detriment to it's own implementation. Meanwhile Alaska has already set up a complete inter-agency federal/state/local trunked radio system based on an open standard (P25), running on a VoIP backbone. It's DONE. And the FCC is still trying to figure out how it's going to start.

All public safety agencies and even the military use it. Local cops and firefighters to FBI/DEA and Army + Air force. It's currently near completion (they keep adding sites) and the old systems have already been retired. Between all those organizations, spectrum was not an issue.

The feds and state got together and said "hey, between us, we've got a lot of spectrum!" and then they did the logical thing and set up an advanced trunked radio system that allows each department to control their radio transmissions and permissions via software talkgroups, instead doing so by carving out specific frequencies for groups of users.

Trunked radio with a VoIP backbone. When someone needs to talk to another organization, they push a button and if they have the permissions (and/or encryption key) they can do so. They can also do so from anywhere within the ALMR system. When a tower sees a radio associated with a foreign talkgroup, it will pull a feed of that talkgroup, so that even if 500 miles away, the radio hears everything it would as if it were at home.

There all sorts of fancy features that the "future" will bring, such as faster data and such, but right now, the country is still stuck on the old systems while they plan the next big thing. Walk before you run!

Whoa, hold on there a second. You don't think mobile video streaming out of disater sites and allowing remote assistance to local responders is good. It is very smart for the Feds to hold on and make available a decent chunk of bandwitdh for disaster and military. Once you sell that stuff off, you are never getting it back.

Lot's of this comes back to money and priorties. As I mentioned above the comparison to the cost of FIOS is kind of inaccurate, this system needs way more coverage. They are trying to cover the whole country, not use the profitable parts.

Well the government/military hasn't done too well with the 'decent chunk of bandwidth' so far (See Katrina and/or Haiti). They should let the stuff go, it can only help the private sector anyways.

Streaming should be expanded regardless, especially for the benefit of consumers. Watch March 17th as the FCC presents the broadband plan to the Senate... Then we'll have an idea of which direction we will go.

What I wonder is how it will possibly affect the movie studios bid to get their movies out quicker to the public, possibly through home streaming (through the TV as well?).

I think it is wonderful that the FCC is advancing public safety networks. As it progresses through the process of improving the system and instituting next generation services, the Commission should ensure that it does not repeat some of current deficiencies found in other areas of public safety, such as the lack of a multilingual Emergency Alert System, but instead creates an advanced system that is capable of alerting all Americans.